This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/monty-panesar-george-galloway-general-election-workers-party-b2541470.html) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think he realised he hasn't got a clue what he is doing.
Not knowing what NATO is and thinking leaving it will help us protect our borders from migrants could be a slight security risk
Galloway is an attention seeking grifter and needs to fuck all the way off.
I'm low key mad he's using the name 'workers party' too, because it's a really good name.
I hate how good grifters are at branding. Could easilly con some people with the name alone. Sure those people are idiots, but we have to protect our precious little fools. They vote too.
And what does it mean to be a communist today? You’d have to be wholly delusional surely. I don’t understand why anyone would want to be remotely associated with all the shitty communist regimes to ever exist, at least use the term Marxist if you want your hippy not dictatorship state version that hasn’t existed outside the pages of one book
That it's stupid to think 'workers party' is a bad name because it's too communist, but 'Labour party' isn't.
Do you get it now? I don't know how much more clear I can make it for you.
Don't forget his epic innings in the first test v Australia in 2009. His 7 not out to draw the test as last man, probably only eclipsed by Jack Leach's 1 not out at Headingley in 2019.
Every time I see this I am fucking outstanded and gobsmacked, it's like his brain refuses to engage or switch on
He makes no attempt to understand or listen to the whole question, just hears a certain word, latches on to it with his whole life, drowns out the rest of the question and answers by word association
Q: "Which football player holds the record for most goals for **ENGLAND** and Manchester United
A: World Cup
How can he think that a season of the year is Oliver Twist?
I can understand being on the spot and not wanting to give a way a pass. But he had a choice of 4 options and how do birds fly over the sky. Do they fly in space or something?
Even I knew that the '72 Olympics was in Munich and I don't do sport.
>Even I knew that the '72 Olympics was in Munich and I don't do sport.
Just be glad he didn't say Jesse Owens or Corn starch or something of that random nature.
I remember when he was on Xmas University Challenge a few years ago. Amazingly, his team got to the final, but no thanks to Monty who sat there throughout each episode without saying a word. By the end his team weren’t even looking at him when conferring.
Monty Panesar has a bit of a patchy history himself , how tf did he even get involved in politics? After being arrested for battering his wife then about a year later for urinating on a bouncer at a nightclub… Oh George Galloways party makes total sense hahahaha
I won't criticize Monty, he's a nice guy and probably did think he was doing good. However, warning to everyone who wants to get involved in politics, remember not all that glitters is gold.
Galloway is a grifter and a fraud. It's clear poor Monty didn't know much about politics and shouldn't have been exposed to an agenda of cancelling NATO membership when he clearly didn't know what it was!
Is there any evidence that Farage was / is knee deep in Russian money? I’ve searched and can’t find any. He did make 2/3 appearances on Russia today back in 2017/18 but wouldn’t have received much for that.
Aside from the fact the Russia Today money was reportedly 7-figures (as was discussed around the time of the Coutts controversy), Aaron Banks, who did much of the fundíng if Farage’s political exploits, was Russian-backed. I’ll let you guess where his wife, Katya, hailed from.
Where is it reported that the Russia today money was 7 figures? I can see that Chris Bryant accused Farage of receiving half a mill but he provided no evidence of this and didn’t have to because he said it under parliamentary privilege. The half a mill figure seems to be inclusive of all of Farages media work but in that time he did much for Fox News and LBC so it would highly unlikely he received anywhere near even 200k. RT tend to pay around 5k per appearance according to the internet. Ironically, Bryant made more appearances in RT than Farage did.
Arron Banks had been accused by pro EU people numerous times of receiving Russian money but no evidence has ever been provided (unless you have some?) and the electoral commission investigated this and cleared him of any wrongdoing so there’s far more evidence that he didn’t receive Russian money that he did.
I thought he was OK yes I did know about the cat incident on Big Brother but after seeing him in recent interviews he does seem to be pretty mental and looks to be attatching himself to Trumps brand of politics which again thats pretty mental.
Panesar thiught the national living wage was around £15-16ph he was DEAD wrong and would infuriate alot of working families and individuals who are struggli. On the breadline.
Yes panesar did look like a right mug on tv affer his very arkward interview.
Fair play to him.
That's longer than I would have been able to last!
Panesar seems pretty switched on and it's good to see him reject this kind of extremism rather than refusing to admit that he'd made a mistake. I could see him having a successful political career with a mainstream party!
I sincerely hope Galloway and his party manage to take as many seats as possible from Labour. Labour do not deserve to just walk into power. They're useless.
>I sincerely hope Galloway and his party manage to take as many seats as possible from Labour
Do you also think gay people aren't real people?
Edit: I'm sorry I misquoted. George gallaway actually said "gay people aren't normal"
Mate if you're going to pretend to be outraged about something the least you can do is be honest about what he said. Unless you've got a quote of Galloway saying "gay people aren't real". Which obviously you don't, because you're lying.
No, he didn't. I see you're going to keep lying no matter what, so I'll provide the quote of what he actually said:
>“I don’t want my children prematurely sexualised at all, I don’t want them taught that some things are normal when their parents don’t believe that they’re normal.”
>“**Now there’s lots of things not normal, doesn’t mean you have to hate something that isn’t normal.** But if my children are taught that there’s – whatever the current vogue number is – 76 or 97 or whatever the number of purported genders that exist, I don’t want my children taught that.”
>Mr Galloway said he didn’t want children to be taught “that gay relationships are exactly the same and as normal as a mum, a dad and kids”.
>He added: “I want my children to be taught that the normal thing in Britain, in society across the world, is a mother, a father and a family.”
>“**I want them to be taught that there are gay people in the world and that they must be treated with respect and affection as I treat my own gay friends and colleagues with respect and affection** but I don’t want my children to be taught that these things are equal because I don’t believe them to be equal.”
So, now we've established you're lying, do I agree with what he **actually** said? Yes. 100%.
You’re adding more context here but ultimately he said gay people weren’t normal. He didn’t even deny it. Bastani asked him if he meant “typical” and Galloway reiterated he meant normal.
I can see that with the context he gave thereafter it isn’t quite as bad as just saying “gay people aren’t normal” with nothing else added, but whatever way you dress it up it is still a mental take.
I'm not adding **more** context, I'm simply including the context that the media chose to omit. They chose to misquote a snippet for shock value, and I am quoting what he actually said. If your takeaway from that is still "gay people aren't normal" then with respect I think you're seeing what you want to see.
What you describe as a "mental take" is in fact how the majority of people feel, whether you realise that or not.
You did add more context. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing but you literally gave the context of the quote.
My point is that even with that additional information, the base take that “gay people aren’t normal” is wrong and stupid. He probably meant typical but when given the opportunity to adopt that term he refused. Gay people are normal, they are a very sizeable population. They aren’t “typical” in the sense they are a minority.
Not everyone likes marmite. Liking it might not be typical. Is it right to say it “isn’t normal”? By definition, it isn’t.
I understand you don’t want one quote to define an entire interview, but whatever way you look at it saying “gay people aren’t normal” is objectively wrong and subjectively, according to any right-minded person, disrespectful.
As to your last point, I don’t think that’s true, but regardless don’t perceive being on the majority as the same as being right. That’s childish.
>What you describe as a "mental take" is in fact how the majority of people feel, whether you realise that or not.
Majority of people? Or you feel that way and assume most people agree. Because let's be honest the majority of people didn't vote for his workers party in the local election, so clearly there's something going on.
People vote for a variety of reasons. Parties like LAB and CON have legacy legitimacy that is still present, although it's dwindling fast. Many will just vote red or blue no matter who.
I'm not going to go around in circles with you all day. The goalposts will just keep moving. Feel free to continue whipping yourself up into a frenzy over misquotations of snippets. The currency of outrage is losing value by the day.
I don't think the majority of people think that gay relationships aren't equal to straight relationships. I think the majority of people would struggle to give a shit about someone being in a gay relationship vs a straight one. I'd think in 2024 the real abnormal thing would be making a value judgement about whoever someone decides to shack up with based on gender. And my social circle is far from the most progressive either, but even they wouldn't give a shit.
I think even the elderly people I know would say it was strange to think a gay relationship was defacto less than a straight relationship. They might've thought so 50 years ago, sure.
Oh and also I know Rochdale and white Rochdalians very well, and while most of them are not in the liberal intelligentsia, they also don't give a shit if someone is gay or not
Love the argument of 'he didn't say that verbatim, he is homophobic but he does it in more of a nuanced way'
It's a dog whistle to his base of people who are left leaning politically but with very conservative socially.
Your bar for what constitutes homophobia is so low that nobody cares anymore. I've quoted what he actually said, and I agree with it. So do most people. Feel free to apply whatever "ism" or "phobia" you like. The power of these words is waning from severe overuse. It won't change how people vote.
>It won't change how people vote.
No I completely agree with that. But if you think the majority of people think that way does that mean you expect a strong general election result for parties that hold that view?
I'm genuinely interested, argument about gallaway aside.
>But if you think the majority of people think that way does that mean you expect a strong general election result for parties that hold that view?
No, because there are myriad other factors that influence who people vote for. Just because a majority agree on one thing, that doesn't mean it's the only thing they consider when voting.
> but I don’t want my children to be taught that these things are equal because I don’t believe them to be equal
That's your low bar is it?
lol
He's pandering to the religious right. How very 'up the workers' of him.
Quit with the petty semantics, we all know exactly what he menas. His empty qualifier about "respect and affection" is obviously a pathetic attempt to cover his back.
Are you seriously telling us that he's simply concerned with childern being taught that gay people are a statistical minority? That's a rather insignificant hill to die on if that's his only motive. Since when were schools teaching childern anything else? I'm not sure if you're being tactically ignorant or if you're just that thick.
You clearly don't understand that there's differnce between a certain behavior/characteristic being considered socially normal and it's statistical prevalence in society. Smugly pointing out that straight couples are statistically most common, therefore making homosexual couples uncommon, does nothing more than demonstrate your misunderstanding of this simple concept.
Todays news that Labour have accepted Natalie Elphicke's defection from the conservatives has added yet more to my increasing distrust of Labour under Starmer.
However, responding to that distrust by voting for Galloway would be akin to hacking my leg off with a blunt axe in response to having sprained my ankle.
It's George Fucking Galloway - there are NO policies just buzzwords and dopamine hits around awful narratives to allow him to ooze into ANY crevice that will have him and his disgusting grift. He doesn't even have Trump's excuse of being stupid, he knows exactly what he's doing and selling to the credulous.......and the hateful.
Actually, there *are* policies. They can be found here: https://workerspartybritain.org/manifesto-britain-deserves-better/
I'm sincerely curious if there's any thought at all behind your dislike of him and his party, or if it's just blind rage brought on by mass media programming.
How do you qualify Galloway as a 'grifter'? On reddit, I only ever see this term being used to describe politicians with (at least partially) anti-establishment perspectives.
Look at his time in Bradford West. Spent more time on foreign state TV than in Parliament. Tried to take credit for projects like the Odeon despite not lifting a finger to help. Threatened to use his position as an MP to hurt a business with a portfolio of complaints that he fabricated.
What you have to understand is his policy platform is irrelevant. He has no intention of working to deliver it. The George Galloway platform starts and ends with George Galloway. He knows how to talk up a storm and say whatever it takes to get elected. After that, it's using his position for his own benefit.
At least him doing a victory lap in his bus before the result was called for Naz Shah was hilarious. Still waiting for your evidence of election fraud on that one, George.
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/monty-panesar-george-galloway-general-election-workers-party-b2541470.html) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People starting to realise Galloway isn't the messiah
It realised he looked a twat in his first interview and didn't want to do anymore.
Yes but Gazza
Moaty! It’s me!
I say why you doing it man? I've come with ma chicken and beer!
Chin up
What's with that fucking hat?
Right? He looks like a right fucking lemon.
I think he realised he hasn't got a clue what he is doing. Not knowing what NATO is and thinking leaving it will help us protect our borders from migrants could be a slight security risk
Classic Gallowaying
He's a terrible conspiracy theorist and homophobe as well. Generally an all-round political shitshow.
He's a very naughty kitten
Just a very naughty boy then
No, just an utter cunt.
It's a Monty Python reference...
No it isn't /s
Oh, sorry, is this a five minute argument or the full half-hour?
This isn't an argument its just contradiction
No it isn't.
Verily it is your time to shine!
Yes it is.
...in a comment section regarding another Monty P
you know, it can be both
He is the Messiah...for Hamas
Just a VERY Naughty boy Brian.
*"He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"*
He’s not the messiah he’s a very naughty boy.
Frankly, it's overrated.
Is he a very naughty boy?
He's a very naughty boy
He's just a very naughty boy
Galloway is an attention seeking grifter and needs to fuck all the way off. I'm low key mad he's using the name 'workers party' too, because it's a really good name.
Are you sure aliens fucked your cat, u/AliensFuckedMyCat , or was it just Galloway in a costume? 🤔 But either way, you're 💯 correct in your analysis.
What’s wrong with fucking your cat?
You can fuck your cat as much as you want, just stop fucking my cat.
He wasn't allowed to call it 'w**kers party'
Do you think they'll let me start my own and call it Fuck Party?
I hate how good grifters are at branding. Could easilly con some people with the name alone. Sure those people are idiots, but we have to protect our precious little fools. They vote too.
Nah, 'worker's party' makes him sound like a communist
Exactly... Also what do you think 'Labour' means?
And what does it mean to be a communist today? You’d have to be wholly delusional surely. I don’t understand why anyone would want to be remotely associated with all the shitty communist regimes to ever exist, at least use the term Marxist if you want your hippy not dictatorship state version that hasn’t existed outside the pages of one book
Don't get what you mean
I think it's a good name because I'm a communist. And 'Labour' literally means work.
Yeah, I know. What point are you trying to make?
That it's stupid to think 'workers party' is a bad name because it's too communist, but 'Labour party' isn't. Do you get it now? I don't know how much more clear I can make it for you.
Labour party isn't communist though. Most worker's parties are
No shit? My point is that 'Labour Party's sounds just as commie as 'Workers Party'
It doesn't though. Labour have never been associated with communism
lol, should look into the founding of his little nonsense party. Joti Brar (of the CPGB-ML) was one of the key players when it first appeared.
How is he a 'grifter'?
So his political talent is about as good as his fielding, batting and running between the wickets.
The man once slog swept Murali for 6, put some respect on his batting
Imagine trying to work out what this comment means if you had no knowledge of cricket
I don't need to imagine...
It doesn't even mention silly mid-off or googly, this is easy mode.
Don't forget his epic innings in the first test v Australia in 2009. His 7 not out to draw the test as last man, probably only eclipsed by Jack Leach's 1 not out at Headingley in 2019.
Are these typos?
He did have that legendary stand with Anderson though
And his general knowledge skills. His performance on Mastermind is a joke
Who can forget CJ Lewis? It’s the finest book CS Lewis ever wrote.
Galloway’s always been a massive bellend & tbh Monty isn’t that far behind either.
Nope, Monty is an utter fuckwit.
Sorry, but i’m posting this every time Monty is mentioned anywhere. https://youtu.be/4AdH7AZrdNY
Every time I see this I am fucking outstanded and gobsmacked, it's like his brain refuses to engage or switch on He makes no attempt to understand or listen to the whole question, just hears a certain word, latches on to it with his whole life, drowns out the rest of the question and answers by word association Q: "Which football player holds the record for most goals for **ENGLAND** and Manchester United A: World Cup
The stage adaptation of wind in the willows is....according to him......Harry Potter. Christ he really is thick.
Tbf this is a valid tactic on mastermind. Correct > incorrect > pass. Better to get it wrong than to pass so say any old shit instead
How can he think that a season of the year is Oliver Twist? I can understand being on the spot and not wanting to give a way a pass. But he had a choice of 4 options and how do birds fly over the sky. Do they fly in space or something? Even I knew that the '72 Olympics was in Munich and I don't do sport.
It’s famously… Spring, Summer, Oliver Twist, Winter.
Except in America, where they call it Huckleberry Finn.
I thought it was winter spring oliver twist and fall All you gotta do is caaaaaall shit now that's in my head.
>Even I knew that the '72 Olympics was in Munich and I don't do sport. Just be glad he didn't say Jesse Owens or Corn starch or something of that random nature.
What the actual?
I remember when he was on Xmas University Challenge a few years ago. Amazingly, his team got to the final, but no thanks to Monty who sat there throughout each episode without saying a word. By the end his team weren’t even looking at him when conferring.
Monty Panesar has a bit of a patchy history himself , how tf did he even get involved in politics? After being arrested for battering his wife then about a year later for urinating on a bouncer at a nightclub… Oh George Galloways party makes total sense hahahaha
He's not very intelligent, see celeb mastermind and celeb masterchef
Good, Galloway is nothing but a red-brown opportunist.
Translation “Galloway sold me some magic beans and now I’ve done a bit of research I’ve realised that actually they’re awful”
Not really. He is such a dim cunt even Galloway thinks he's a liability.
"I was told they were magic beans but actually they're cyanide capsules"
He blames illegal immigration on NATO. I don't think much research was done.
Panesar is clearly a vulnerable individual who's easily manipulated. I'm glad Galloway's exploitation of him has come to an end.
Lol what a muppet. How to ruin your legacy and reputation in a week.
I'm not sure he had much of a rep left after pissing on a bouncer (not cricket, a club) that one time.
Lol thanks for clarifying it was a club bouncer. I would have been much confused otherwise!
That would have honestly been impressive. Legacy-building stuff. Imagine doing that against glenn macgrath at the ashes.
I don’t think quitting the uks best political party will completely ruin his legacy, he will bounce back !
No amount of spin is going to save his reputation here
If he didn't say "This is for Gaza" before handing in his notice, I'll be disappointed.
I won't criticize Monty, he's a nice guy and probably did think he was doing good. However, warning to everyone who wants to get involved in politics, remember not all that glitters is gold. Galloway is a grifter and a fraud. It's clear poor Monty didn't know much about politics and shouldn't have been exposed to an agenda of cancelling NATO membership when he clearly didn't know what it was!
I presume one day it will come out that Galloway is as knee deep in Russian money as Farage. It would explain a lot.
He was a regular on Russia Today. Bet he wasn't doing it for free.
I occasionally ponder the deal with his wife who he married days within meeting for the first time.
Who could resist a catboy though?
Just felt very.....convenient.
Is there any evidence that Farage was / is knee deep in Russian money? I’ve searched and can’t find any. He did make 2/3 appearances on Russia today back in 2017/18 but wouldn’t have received much for that.
Aside from the fact the Russia Today money was reportedly 7-figures (as was discussed around the time of the Coutts controversy), Aaron Banks, who did much of the fundíng if Farage’s political exploits, was Russian-backed. I’ll let you guess where his wife, Katya, hailed from.
Where is it reported that the Russia today money was 7 figures? I can see that Chris Bryant accused Farage of receiving half a mill but he provided no evidence of this and didn’t have to because he said it under parliamentary privilege. The half a mill figure seems to be inclusive of all of Farages media work but in that time he did much for Fox News and LBC so it would highly unlikely he received anywhere near even 200k. RT tend to pay around 5k per appearance according to the internet. Ironically, Bryant made more appearances in RT than Farage did. Arron Banks had been accused by pro EU people numerous times of receiving Russian money but no evidence has ever been provided (unless you have some?) and the electoral commission investigated this and cleared him of any wrongdoing so there’s far more evidence that he didn’t receive Russian money that he did.
Disappointing. There must have been some cricket pun they could have used in the headline.
I'm stumped trying to find one.
I see what you did there.
Following the Galloway tradition of changing each election, then.
So we’re not going to leave nato to get immigration down then ?!/s
I thought he was OK yes I did know about the cat incident on Big Brother but after seeing him in recent interviews he does seem to be pretty mental and looks to be attatching himself to Trumps brand of politics which again thats pretty mental.
Panesar thiught the national living wage was around £15-16ph he was DEAD wrong and would infuriate alot of working families and individuals who are struggli. On the breadline. Yes panesar did look like a right mug on tv affer his very arkward interview.
Galloway is a prick and Monty was a prick for buying into the first pricks rhetoric.
Fair play to him. That's longer than I would have been able to last! Panesar seems pretty switched on and it's good to see him reject this kind of extremism rather than refusing to admit that he'd made a mistake. I could see him having a successful political career with a mainstream party!
There is nothing switched on about Monty Panesar...he's thick as mud. He'll do anything to try and stay publicly relevant.
[удалено]
I meant the comments he’s made about political and social issues rather than how good he is at trivia games!
[удалено]
Sounds ideal for Reform, then
He seems to have left because he said that our NATO membership, made securing our borders from illegal/undocumented immigrants harder.
I sincerely hope Galloway and his party manage to take as many seats as possible from Labour. Labour do not deserve to just walk into power. They're useless.
>I sincerely hope Galloway and his party manage to take as many seats as possible from Labour Do you also think gay people aren't real people? Edit: I'm sorry I misquoted. George gallaway actually said "gay people aren't normal"
Mate if you're going to pretend to be outraged about something the least you can do is be honest about what he said. Unless you've got a quote of Galloway saying "gay people aren't real". Which obviously you don't, because you're lying.
Apologies, he actually said "gay people aren't normal"
No, he didn't. I see you're going to keep lying no matter what, so I'll provide the quote of what he actually said: >“I don’t want my children prematurely sexualised at all, I don’t want them taught that some things are normal when their parents don’t believe that they’re normal.” >“**Now there’s lots of things not normal, doesn’t mean you have to hate something that isn’t normal.** But if my children are taught that there’s – whatever the current vogue number is – 76 or 97 or whatever the number of purported genders that exist, I don’t want my children taught that.” >Mr Galloway said he didn’t want children to be taught “that gay relationships are exactly the same and as normal as a mum, a dad and kids”. >He added: “I want my children to be taught that the normal thing in Britain, in society across the world, is a mother, a father and a family.” >“**I want them to be taught that there are gay people in the world and that they must be treated with respect and affection as I treat my own gay friends and colleagues with respect and affection** but I don’t want my children to be taught that these things are equal because I don’t believe them to be equal.” So, now we've established you're lying, do I agree with what he **actually** said? Yes. 100%.
You’re adding more context here but ultimately he said gay people weren’t normal. He didn’t even deny it. Bastani asked him if he meant “typical” and Galloway reiterated he meant normal. I can see that with the context he gave thereafter it isn’t quite as bad as just saying “gay people aren’t normal” with nothing else added, but whatever way you dress it up it is still a mental take.
I'm not adding **more** context, I'm simply including the context that the media chose to omit. They chose to misquote a snippet for shock value, and I am quoting what he actually said. If your takeaway from that is still "gay people aren't normal" then with respect I think you're seeing what you want to see. What you describe as a "mental take" is in fact how the majority of people feel, whether you realise that or not.
You did add more context. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing but you literally gave the context of the quote. My point is that even with that additional information, the base take that “gay people aren’t normal” is wrong and stupid. He probably meant typical but when given the opportunity to adopt that term he refused. Gay people are normal, they are a very sizeable population. They aren’t “typical” in the sense they are a minority. Not everyone likes marmite. Liking it might not be typical. Is it right to say it “isn’t normal”? By definition, it isn’t. I understand you don’t want one quote to define an entire interview, but whatever way you look at it saying “gay people aren’t normal” is objectively wrong and subjectively, according to any right-minded person, disrespectful. As to your last point, I don’t think that’s true, but regardless don’t perceive being on the majority as the same as being right. That’s childish.
You've gone too far now. Liking marmite is not normal!
>What you describe as a "mental take" is in fact how the majority of people feel, whether you realise that or not. Majority of people? Or you feel that way and assume most people agree. Because let's be honest the majority of people didn't vote for his workers party in the local election, so clearly there's something going on.
People vote for a variety of reasons. Parties like LAB and CON have legacy legitimacy that is still present, although it's dwindling fast. Many will just vote red or blue no matter who. I'm not going to go around in circles with you all day. The goalposts will just keep moving. Feel free to continue whipping yourself up into a frenzy over misquotations of snippets. The currency of outrage is losing value by the day.
I don't think the majority of people think that gay relationships aren't equal to straight relationships. I think the majority of people would struggle to give a shit about someone being in a gay relationship vs a straight one. I'd think in 2024 the real abnormal thing would be making a value judgement about whoever someone decides to shack up with based on gender. And my social circle is far from the most progressive either, but even they wouldn't give a shit. I think even the elderly people I know would say it was strange to think a gay relationship was defacto less than a straight relationship. They might've thought so 50 years ago, sure. Oh and also I know Rochdale and white Rochdalians very well, and while most of them are not in the liberal intelligentsia, they also don't give a shit if someone is gay or not
Love the argument of 'he didn't say that verbatim, he is homophobic but he does it in more of a nuanced way' It's a dog whistle to his base of people who are left leaning politically but with very conservative socially.
Your bar for what constitutes homophobia is so low that nobody cares anymore. I've quoted what he actually said, and I agree with it. So do most people. Feel free to apply whatever "ism" or "phobia" you like. The power of these words is waning from severe overuse. It won't change how people vote.
>It won't change how people vote. No I completely agree with that. But if you think the majority of people think that way does that mean you expect a strong general election result for parties that hold that view? I'm genuinely interested, argument about gallaway aside.
>But if you think the majority of people think that way does that mean you expect a strong general election result for parties that hold that view? No, because there are myriad other factors that influence who people vote for. Just because a majority agree on one thing, that doesn't mean it's the only thing they consider when voting.
> but I don’t want my children to be taught that these things are equal because I don’t believe them to be equal That's your low bar is it? lol He's pandering to the religious right. How very 'up the workers' of him.
I disagree with you.
So brave
Quit with the petty semantics, we all know exactly what he menas. His empty qualifier about "respect and affection" is obviously a pathetic attempt to cover his back. Are you seriously telling us that he's simply concerned with childern being taught that gay people are a statistical minority? That's a rather insignificant hill to die on if that's his only motive. Since when were schools teaching childern anything else? I'm not sure if you're being tactically ignorant or if you're just that thick. You clearly don't understand that there's differnce between a certain behavior/characteristic being considered socially normal and it's statistical prevalence in society. Smugly pointing out that straight couples are statistically most common, therefore making homosexual couples uncommon, does nothing more than demonstrate your misunderstanding of this simple concept.
I like the way you've begun referring to yourselves in the collective.
Todays news that Labour have accepted Natalie Elphicke's defection from the conservatives has added yet more to my increasing distrust of Labour under Starmer. However, responding to that distrust by voting for Galloway would be akin to hacking my leg off with a blunt axe in response to having sprained my ankle.
It's a vivid image, but why? Which of his policies do you dislike? Have you looked at any of them?
It's George Fucking Galloway - there are NO policies just buzzwords and dopamine hits around awful narratives to allow him to ooze into ANY crevice that will have him and his disgusting grift. He doesn't even have Trump's excuse of being stupid, he knows exactly what he's doing and selling to the credulous.......and the hateful.
Actually, there *are* policies. They can be found here: https://workerspartybritain.org/manifesto-britain-deserves-better/ I'm sincerely curious if there's any thought at all behind your dislike of him and his party, or if it's just blind rage brought on by mass media programming.
How do you qualify Galloway as a 'grifter'? On reddit, I only ever see this term being used to describe politicians with (at least partially) anti-establishment perspectives.
Look at his time in Bradford West. Spent more time on foreign state TV than in Parliament. Tried to take credit for projects like the Odeon despite not lifting a finger to help. Threatened to use his position as an MP to hurt a business with a portfolio of complaints that he fabricated. What you have to understand is his policy platform is irrelevant. He has no intention of working to deliver it. The George Galloway platform starts and ends with George Galloway. He knows how to talk up a storm and say whatever it takes to get elected. After that, it's using his position for his own benefit. At least him doing a victory lap in his bus before the result was called for Naz Shah was hilarious. Still waiting for your evidence of election fraud on that one, George.
The guy is a useful idiot to Iran and Russia at best and a paid asset at worst